9/11 Facts

We Were Lied to about 9-11: The Interviews

By Erik Larson – April 25, 2019

In the aftermath of 9/11, those in power who failed to protect the US and defend the Constitution before 9/11 used the attacks as a pretext for suppressing rights and launching wars – and they still do. Those doing so have received public support, and increased authority and budgets from the Executive branch and Congress. Whistleblowers and witnesses pointing to false statements and other wrongdoing were silenced and punished, and still are. There were limited IG and congressional inquiries, and then the 9/11 Commission. All of the Commission’s members and half its staff had political, professional, personal and/or economic conflicts of interest. Its investigation and final report ignored or spun important evidence and witnesses, as well as the vast majority of the questions posed by the Family Steering Committee. Without the efforts by 9/11 families, there may not even have been the 9/11 Commission. A new book by by researcher and activist Jon Gold documents and examines all of this: We Were Lied to About 9/11: The Interviews. (Read More…)

3. Isn’t it disrespectful to the victims of 9/11 and their families to question the events of that day?

No. Many of the families of the victims question the official story and are demanding that the truth be disclosed. The same is true of many dying heroes – the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11 – and are soon to become victims of the 9/11 attacks themselves. See this article.

4. Isn’t it clear that Muslims carried out 9/11, and the war on terror is a clash of civilizations and religions? Therefore, isn’t 9/11 skepticism harmful to our faith? And aren’t the people questioning 9/11 anti-Semites?

Tools for Informing Friends and Family

By Staff – March 29, 2017

In the past seven months, AE911Truth has published two educational tools that are reaching large audiences and proving to be particularly effective with “on-the-fencers” and “newcomers” to the evidence of controlled demolition on 9/11.
The first was “15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses.” This feature article by Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Tony Szamboti, and Ted Walter appeared in the August 2016 issue of Europhysics News, which is the magazine of the European Physical Society. Last month, the article surpassed a milestone of 500,000 views — and it continues to attract between 500 and 1,000 readers each day.
The second was “Stand for the Truth: A Government Researcher Speaks Out.” Released two weeks ago, this half-hour interview with Peter Michael Ketcham — a former employee of NIST — has been seen nearly 50,000 times on Facebook and 40,000 times on YouTube.

Why do self-styled “skeptics” believe in their own brand of miracles?

By Petra Liverani -March 17, 20183460
I find it such an interesting phenomenon that of all the self-styled skeptics I have corresponded with or whose opinions are aired online, every single one swallows the miracles, told to us by NIST, of the three high rise steel frame building collapses on 9/11 being caused by fire when the evidence clearly shows that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition. Moreover, the $5,000 10-point Occam’s Razor challenge on the cause of collapse of the third building, WTC-7, that I’ve issued personally to a significant number of these self-styled skeptics, has been very loudly ignored.
As Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, infamously said when asked if she were xenophobic, “Please explain”.

Please explain why it is that the most prolific scholar – by far – on 9/11 is a Christian and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, David Ray Griffin, and why this scholar, highly-esteemed within and without his own academic field, does not swallow the collapse-by-fire miracles? He has written over 10 books on the subject of 9/11, his latest being Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. He has also recently authored and co-authored two books on climate change. So he’s on the same page as most of the self-styled skeptics (in no way referring to the so-called climate skeptics, of course) with climate change but not with 9/11.
As summarised by Edward Curtin in his review of Griffin’s book, here are the 15 miracles that Griffin identified that the self-styled skeptics have swallowed:

The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were the only steel-framed high-rise buildings ever to come down without explosives or incendiaries.

The Twin Towers, each of which had 287 steel columns, were brought down solely by a combination of airplane strikes and jet-fuel fires.

WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, so it was the first steel-framed high-rise to be brought down solely by ordinary building fires.

These World Trade Center buildings also came down in free fall – the Twin Towers in virtual free fall, WTC 7 in absolute free fall – for over two seconds.

Although the collapses of the of the WTC buildings were not aided by explosives, the collapses imitated the kinds of implosions that can be induced only by demolition companies.

In the case of WTC 7, the structure came down symmetrically (straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline), which meant that all 82 of the steel support columns had to fall simultaneously, although the building’s fires had a very asymmetrical pattern.

The South Tower’s upper 30-floor block changed its angular momentum in midair.

This 30 floor block then disintegrated in midair.

With regard to the North Tower, some of its steel columns were ejected out horizontally for at least 500 feet.

The fires in the debris from the WTC buildings could not be extinguished for many months.

Although the WTC fires, based on ordinary building fires, could not have produced temperatures above 1,800℉, the fires inexplicably melted metals with much higher melting points, such as iron (2,800℉) and even molybdenum (4,753℉).

Some of the steel in the debris had been sulfidized, resulting in Swiss-cheese-appearing steel, even though ordinary building fires could not have resulted in the sulfidation.

As a passenger on AA Flight 77, Barbara Olson called her husband, telling him about hijackers on her plane, even though this plane had no onboard phones and its altitude was too high for a cell phone call to get through.

Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour could not possibly have flown the trajectory of AA 77 to strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, and yet he did.